Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

What would certainly be interesting is to see the Stats on how many
cat shot 2 engine jets with a maintenance failure or FOD on one engine
made it back around to a "no event, single engine trap".

I know first hand one incident in a previous prowler command I was
MMCO and the Pilot was very happy he had 2 engines after losing one on
takeoff due to maintenance error. The 4 souls made it back safely on
one engine.

We all know the biggest arguement is blue water ops it is better to
have 2 engines.

Redundancy is the key arguement, not performance.

Reliability in normal ops has surely improved, but have the FOD #'s
gone down? Maintenance error? I would bet stats show they have
improved but by how much?

Lets not get confused with a turbo fan that sits high up on a
commercial jet, with a vacuum cleaner on the flight deck.

Sure the turbo fans have been certed for 2 engine long haul
transoceanic flights, but they don't operate in the same environment,
not even close as a Navy Fighter/Bomber/Jammer with a turbojet.

It's a great debate either way. Bottom line is cost over safety. I
would like to see the stats before I could come up with a decision.

Other than finding a needle in a haystack using FAA website, NTSB and
Naval safety center, does anyone have stats on Navy Jets having 2
engines making it back to ground safely with a one engine failure,
(combat, FOD, maintenance) readily available to peruse?

It don't matter anyway JSF is being shoved down the Navy's throat
(gag).

OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it
from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier
for that MOD.

(The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP
also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power
source.)

This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will
pass OpEval.

But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at
least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"?

Can the carrier AIMD IM4 division fix it? Can you say Contractor
support again? Please can we have it?

This is the best arguement of all to scrap JSF, we don't need it, and
too expensive to support. Let alone the single engine arguement.

Super Hornet is plenty enough to get us through 2030 at least, and
all the ILS elements are in place and are strong.













Thanks.




On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines.

Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe
MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8.

To name just a few.

And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle
damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the
first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged,
and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what
the front is doing as long as the airflow continues.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com